ODS

I understand Ms. Maddow's point but I find it somewhat hollow and here's why.

One of the pillars of Ms. Maddow's defence of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (NPP) win is a comparison to a series of people who had won the award over the previous century who hadn't 'achieved' success in their stated aims. While true its a misleading comparison. . However I think that if one is honest they will recognize that those individuals had been striving towards those aims for longer than three weeks.

First there is Desmond Tutu. Bishop Tutu began his public opposition to apartheid in South Africa during the Soweto Riots of 1976. Bishop Tutu struggled and fought against the racist and oppresive policies of the South African government for 8 years by the time he was awarded the NPP in 1984. True, apartheid had not been abolished at the time Bishop Tutu's recognition by the Nobel committee, but he had put forth much time and energy in his struggle prior to his win. The same can not be said about Obama.

Next there was mention of former US President Woodrow Wilson who had been awarded the NPP in 1919. President Wilson won the award in recognition of his work in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles that put an official end to World War One as well as being a key player in the creation of the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations). Ms. Maddow is correct that neither the League or the Treaty ensured lasting peace in Europe as Hitler's rise to power was only 13 years away and World War Two was only 20 years distant. However when President Wilson won the NPP he had accomplished to great tasks that strove in concrete ways for world peace. The same can't be said for Obama.

Ms. Maddow also made mention to another US President; Jimmy Carter. Carter was a one term President who served from 1977 through 1981. During those four short years he helped to negotiate the Camp David Accords, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II that saw the reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the US and their cold-war adversary the USSR, the Torrijos-Carter Treaties that ensured that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal and reduce the influence of America in the Latin world, as well as removing nuclear weapons from South Korea, he put human rights at the forefront of American foreign policy, and he formalized diplomatic relations with China. He didn't win the NPP until 2002 and Ms. Maddow is correct that peace remained and remains elusive in the mid-east despite the efforts of President Carter. Such a simplistic reductionist attitude towards the efforts of President Carter does his efforts a supreme disservice and yet Obama can't claim to have accomplished even this 'failure'.

The fourth person that Ms. Maddow mentions in comparison to President Obama is Carl von Ossietzky who won the NPP in 1936. Once again Ms. Maddow brings for a blatantly and almost flippant reductionist attitude to the efforts of Mr. von Ossietzky. This was a man who during the turbulent period of the Weimar Republic was a staunch supporter of democracy and pluralistic society. He was charged and convicted of treason in 1931 for making public information on how the German government was violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles by rebuilding its air force and training its pilots in the USSR. He was a leading figure in the German Peace Society and was an opponent of Hitler's rise to power. He was arrested on 28 February 1933 after the Reichstag Fire and put in Spandau Prison due to his speaking out against the Nazi Party. He would die on 4 May 1938 as a result of abuse suffered during his time in concentration camps and of tuberculosis. Ms. Maddow is correct though that Mr. vo Ossetzky's efforts did not end the Nazi regime but he struggled long and hard for peace in Europe and in Germany prior to winning the NPP. Obama can't say the same.

I personally find Ms. Maddow's characterization of these people demeaning and insulting in the extreme. It is doubly so given that she is comparing the real and concrete actions of these people with what are essentially a series of campaign speeches by a campaigning politician.

Another of the pillars in Ms. Maddow's defence of President Obama's winning of the NPP is the notion of convincing the 'most powerful nation on the planet' as being a significant matter. However, that is a bit of stretch as Obama received what 55% of the vote in the election? So 55% of the 70% of the electorate that voted, which is only 60% of the population. That works out to approximately 70 million people (Obama's official vote total was 69,456,897 nearly ten million more than his opponent John McCain) in a nation of 300+ million. So really he convinced 23% of the people in America. That is better ratings than American Idol though.

In the end I think that Ms. Maddow should have come up with a better argument for justifying Obama's victory given that the mandate for the Nobel Peace Prize is recognize the person/people who have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

No doubt Obama deserves recognition for his stance on nuclear weapons but he is not alone in this regard so does everyone who holds a similar stance deserve the Nobel? What about the American presidents who actually signed into law nuclear reduction treaties?

What Obama has said isn't unique, but what differentiates Obama from the other Nobel winners who 'achieved nothing' is that those people had concrete actions supporting their ongoing efforts prior to winning the award. Whereas it appears that President Obama won the award based on what people HOPE he will accomplish in the future. The question that has to be asked and answered is what has he ACCOMPLISHED or at the very least been working on over the past several years that would be worthy of such a prestigious honor?

Barack Obama was inaugurated President on January 20th. The deadline for NPP nominations was February 1st. That leaves 11 days of his presidency to be considered.

Obama has done a lot of things but if you look at the first 11 days of his presidency there are three things of international note. One is the declaration of the closing of Guantanamo within a year. Two is the phone calls and pressers to foreign nations. Three is the attack by US forces by drone aircraft on Pakistan.

Other than that things were domestic in nature and had little bearing on 'world peace'.

Given that much of what Obama had to have been nominated for (I don't know when or who nominated him) must surely have been for things prior to taking office. That being the (most likely) case then Rachel Maddow was equating political stump speeches by a political candidate with the real actions of the people she mentioned.

Being President isn't enough to earn you that award. There needs to be something more and Obama hasn't met that standard. Yet (at least I hope its yet).

The support that was offered in the piece for Obama's win has nothing to do with Obama as each of those people had done something of note in the field before winning the award. Sure the win can be seen as a voice of support for continued action but to equate Obama's campaign speeches with the work of these people is an insult to these people and the efforts they put forth against tyranny and injustice.

When Obama actually closes Guantanamo, reduces nuclear arms and ends the two wars that he is a part of (one of which he is escalating) then, in my opinion, he will be deserving. Till then some will continue to wonder why he won while others will simply bask in the fact that he did.

From the cradle to the cradle

In my previous post I talked about my evolving political thought process and how I've come from a naive apparent conservative to an unknown via a flirtatious dalliance with liberalism.

Thinking back to some conversations I've had over the years with friends one of the things that I think has been consistent in my thinking is the notion that governments should supply services. Services such as roads, national defence, health care, fire departments, justice and the like.

The thing that has changed over that time is the amount of control that I think a government should have over the individual. It doesn't matter what level of government, be it local, provincial or federal, the government should do things for the people not dictate to the people needlessly.

Now of course as people come together to form a society there are certain things that get codified; most obvious are laws. Things such as killing, theft, rape and assault are proscribed within a society. However it is important to notice that these things aren't proscribed by a government, but rather the government is there to enforce proscriptions deemed appropriate by society. Humans have been living in societies of varying sizes for millenia and there are certain constants, such as murder being wrong.

The thing that I now can't seem to wrap my head around is why do people want their governments dictating to them what they can and can't do on ever increasingly minuscule levels of daily life?

An example from when I was younger.

I remember when I was a young teenager moving to a new home that my parents had purchased. It was a house built around the turn of the 20th century and was one of many of that style in the neighborhood. At some point though the Historical Society in the town had managed to convince the elected public officials that an entire portion of the town should be deemed historical. They then used this designation to push through by-laws that prohibited people from modifying their homes if they resided within this historical zone and were of a certain age or older. So when my father wanted to enclose the front porch he had to fight for nearly two years to gain the necessary permits.

I can understand people wanting their governments to set such a thing as a building code to ensure the public safety, but beyond this notion of public safety what business does the government have in dictating to a private property owner what he/she can or can't do with his/her private possession?

Too often giving a government more control over your life is a slippery slope. Now not all governments fall into chaos or genocide but that does not mean that they don't work to strip liberties from the individual.

A more recent example.

Smoking is a terrible vice. It not only impacts the individual but it also affects those around them through second hand smoke. Smoking was a vice that I indulged in for far too long and was lucky enough to quit 17 years ago. In Ontario restrictions on smoking have gone further and further over the years. It started with warnings on the cigarette packages themselves then moved on to smoking bans in government buildings. Soon you weren't allowed to even see a cigarette package in a store or smoke within 9 metres (roughly 28 feet for any imperial lovers out there) of a public doorway.

A couple years ago I noticed a petition at work. Following the same logic of trying to protect the individual or the helpless, the petition asked people to put their name behind a ban on smoking in cars that contained a child. If a person was found violating this ban they were to face monetary fines.

It struck me reading this petition that people were insane for wanting to grant government further powers to restrict the rights of the individual. Where would such powers be used next?

So over time I've come to the notion that governments are service providers, there to do the will of the people. They are not there to dictate to the people or restrict people so long as people are not harming others. Which is why the following news stories piqued my interest.

The first concerns a young girl of 13 who wished to sail around the world. If this was a hundred years ago nothing would have been said. Nobody probably would have known about it, but this is the 21st century and everything is everywhere.

From the article we learn that:

The social workers have argued that Dekker is too young to understand the dangers of the journey and some psychologists believe the two years of isolation could be damaging for her during an important period of her development.

As a result of these complaints "The Utrecht District Court ordered state child care authorities to take responsibility of Dekker Friday for two months while she undergoes an assessment by a child psychologist."

The girl who lives with her father has the support of both her father and mother, and they have abided by the ruling and believe that the voyage will be able to commence once the court issues its rulling in late October. "It supports the idea that "you are not a bad parent if you try to help your child fulfil her dream," said her father.

Now one may be thinking that what 13 year old in their right mind would think up such or thing or be capable of such a thing. However young Ms. Dekker is not your normal 13 year old:

Born on a yacht in New Zealand while her parents were on a round-the-world sailing trip, Dekker spent her first four years at sea. She started sailing solo at six and starting dreaming at age 10 of a solo trip around the world.

"I asked my parents if I could — please — start now," Dekker recently said on a Dutch children's television show.

"In the beginning, they asked if I was sure I really wanted to do it," she said. "They have sailed around the world so they know what could happen and that it's not always fun, but I realize that, too. But I really wanted to do it so my parents said, 'Good, we'll help you.'"

On the surface this looks like the government agency did the right thing doesn't it? Should the government be there to protect children from unneccesary risk and potential neglect? I of course want to know is who gets to decide what is too risky or too neglectful.

Once we begin allowing government agencies staffed by people unaccountable to the people but carrying the power and force of government such invasive powers over individuals and families do you think it likely that they will pull back in their exercise of power or do you think that they will ensure that they are 'demonstrably useful' in order to defend their budgets?

Then comes another example of what I believe to be unnecessary government interference in the lives and rights of the individual.

People in England and Wales who commit crimes or behave anti-socially while drunk could now face a Drinking Banning Order - or "booze Asbo".Under powers coming into force on Monday, police and councils can seek an order on anyone aged 16 and over.Magistrates can then ban them from pubs, bars, off-licences and certain areas for up to two years. Anyone who breaches the order faces a £2,500 fine.

The thing that I like in law is the that "anti-social" behavior is now punishable by law in England and Wales. Of course this is once again done in the interests of public safety but gives government powers an ambiguous mandate.

In my opinion this is an example of what I talked about previously concerning the false assumption that education is 'magic bullet' answer to social ills, however it isn't far behind.

Jeremy Beadles, the chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association which represents companies in the industry, said "tough enforcement" against offenders is "critical if we are to change the culture around problem drinking".

And

John Thornhill, chairman of the Magistrates Association, said he was "not happy that it will work". He added: "We are not satisfied that these will work as effectively as perhaps some of the Asbos have. Clearly the issue is about tackling why it is these people have an alcohol dependency.Some offenders may be referred to a course to address their drinking, and if successfully completed, could see the length of the order reduced.The participant, not the government, is expected to cover the costs of the Positive Behaviour Intervention Courses, from £120 to £250.

Note though that it says that "some offenders may be referred to a course" not that it will be part and parcel of the punative fines and restrictions on their liberty.

I bring up these to recent examples knowing full well that they both occur in Europe. What bearing does that have on anything in Canada one might ask. Fair enough, but if one talks with many Canadians, reads what is written in Canada it is clear that Canadians are more apt to look to Europe as a model for how Canadian society should be or what it should move towards.

To me this is a scary prospect.

*****

Update: I had written this post several days ago and had forgotten to post it. Since that time the girls mother has come out opposed to the voyage:

Dekker's German mother, who lives in the Netherlands, divorced the girl's Dutch father, Dick, when Laura was six years old. The girl lives full time with her father.Until Saturday, it had appeared that both parents supported the girl's ambitions, but Muller said that is not the case.

Why?

Babs Muller told the Dutch daily newspaper Volkskrant that she had kept quiet on the issue until now because her daughter, Laura Dekker, had threatened not to see her again if she tried to foil the trip.

Now this is a thing for the courts to settle.

I have no knowlege of Dutch custody laws and what rights the mother has over the child given that the child lives full time with father. If, however, the mother has no legal right to stop the voyage thenI don't think that the state has any right to either.

The liberal NWO

Over the past several years I've been undergoing periodic shifts in my political views. For instance, I can remember hearing the verdict delivered by the US Supreme Court in 2001 handing that controversial election to George W. Bush and being thankful. I can remember telling a friend that I didn't believe that the US government would lie to the world about WMDs or the like being in Iraq so therefore they must be there.

Yes, I was naive.

But since that time I've become much more politically aware and informed. By no means is my political education complete but I have learned much in the six years since that conversation with my friend.

At one time I was a member of the Reform Party in Canada. Then there was a time when I voted for the NDP in several elections. Not an insignificant shift in viewpoint. I remember talking with a friend and telling him that I was once a "card carrying member of the Reform Party." At first he thought I was joking. When I assured him that I wasn't he was flabbergasted by the notion. I remember numerous discussions with a libertarian friend during which I defended the notion of wealth re-distribution and empowered national governments.

Another positional change that has occurred during this time is my stance on the role of the United Nations. During the same period I was speaking naively about the American motives and actions concerning Iraq, I was arguing that the UN should have the power to directly intervene in international conflicts. Of course this position was taken for humane reasons, arguing that it would benefit millions around the globe, especially in places such as Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia and the Balkans. Now I loathe the concept.

Over the past decade I have gone from a rather unthinking conservative to a questioning quasi-liberal to what I like to think of as a form of anarchism.

The idea of the individual is a rather modern notion whose roots I believe begin in the Protestant Reformation begun by Martin Luther. Until that point the idea that one person was as important or perhaps more important than the community was rare if not unknown. Now certainly it was a developing idea that took time to come to be clearly articulated, but I see its roots in the Reformation (I could go on further with this subject, talking about its perceived effects on society and comparing modern western individualistic culture with the more traditional but changing Confucius based culture of SE Asia and Korea in particular where I presently live but that is not the focus of this missive). Through this concept we have gained many things as individuals and it is the basis for many of the rights that many in the west now enjoy.

Despite this I think that for many there is a disconnect between the notions of political liberalism/conservatism and social liberalism/conservatism. I obviously can't speak for everyone or even that many, but of those that I have spoken to over the years social issues seem to be the main determining factor in choosing who to vote for. When people would ask me who they should vote for my advice is to identify what in their opinion is the top 3-5 issues facing them or society and then see how each of the political parties address those issues. Once you've done the research base your vote on the party that addresses those issues the best in their opinion. Those issues will change for each individual but in the end I think that many people vote based on social issues more so than political or international issues.

One of the issues in recent memory that has bypassed this idea has been the Iraq war. This was an international issue that motivated millions to cast their votes one way or the other; and not only in the US either. People in Canada, Britain, Spain, Australia, etc. voted based on their desire to see their countries involved or not in this war.

Another motivating issue over the past decade, and one that is growing in scope and influence is the idea of global warming. Now for many this is seen as a mixture of social and political issues. Many look to the social impact of such a notion as the basis for political action. In Canada this has seen an increase in support for the Green Party (not enough to gain a seat in the House of Commons but that is due more to our antiquated and dysfunctional electoral system than actual support for the party or its policies but again that is not the focus of this post).

Ever since Al Gore's Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth came out, global warming has been a mainstay of the 24 hour news cycle. A very simplistic and narrow summary of the stance is that human activity through mass farming and industrial activity has exponentially raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to a warming of the global climate that could/will have tremendously negative impacts upon the planet and humanity. These impacts are a runaway greenhouse gas effect that would melt off the polar ice caps and raise sea levels world wide destroying the habitat for hundreds of millions of people world wide. The ultimate doomsday scenario in this scheme is that we end up like our sister planet in the cosmos, Venus, whose climate is controlled by a runaway greenhouse effect resulting in air temperatures of 800C. Obviously this would have a detrimental impact on humanity and ultimately the earth.

Al Gore brought this issue to the fore of public consciousness in 2006 where it has remained ever since. In fact I would argue that it is the considered to be the foremost issue in the minds of people worldwide; well if you listened to the media anyways. Recently a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll, conducted Jan. 7-11, 2009 sees global warming as being ranked 20th out of 20 by Americans.

The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities. Between January 2001 and January 2002, the proportion rating environmental protection as a top priority fell by a similar amount (from 63% to 44%); a number of domestic priorities declined in importance following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By January 2003, just 39% called environmental protection a top priority – comparable to today’s 41% – before resurging as a priority from 2006 to 2008, only to fall again this year.

However what is not talked about much or at least with much seriousness is the idea that there really is no scientific consensus concerning the theory of global climate change or more specifically that such a change is caused by humanity. It seems that whenever someone stands up to question what is presented in the media (and lets be honest the media is virtually the only window into what is going on in the world for a significant portion of the world's population) they are usually shouted down as crackpots. In fact such influential public personalities as David Suzuki (recently voted as the most trusted person in Canada in a Reader's Digest poll) claim that:

And so, even though the scientific proof for human-caused global warming is undeniable, we have the coal and oil industries funding massive campaigns to cast doubt on the science and we have politicians implying that the world’s scientists are involved in some sinister plot – all so we can continue to rely on diminishing supplies of polluting fuels instead of creating jobs and wealth through a greener economy that may save us from catastrophe.

Now Mr. Suzuki is a well respected and very informed person, especially concerning environmental matters. However I can't help but notice how he too couches the criticism of human caused global warming terms of money grubbing conspiracies rather than accepting that there are scientists out there that question what the public is being told. People are being scared into the notion of environmental armageddon in our lifetime (or at least the lifetime of our children and grandchildren) and being told that if drastic steps aren't taken NOW that all is lost.

However the question still remains, is it truly undeniable?

One person who questions the notion of undeniability is author Ian Wishart who wrote the bestselling book Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming. One of the questions that Mr. Wishart asks in his book is who benefits from these global scare tactics? One would think that the obvious answer is: humanity. That may truly be the answer if in fact global warming is an undeniable reality. If it isn't as more and more people are beginning to believe one still has to ask who benefits from all this global political action? In line of Woodward and Bernstein one should follow the money.

One of the proposed measures to mitigate the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the idea of carbon trading schemes, which are to be discussed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference. In a recent interview Wishart aks:

If you look at the economic prize at stake, consider this. We currently have gold markets, but you are not forced to buy and sell gold and only a tiny percentage of the community are active in the gold markets. The financial markets are larger, but even then most of us are not forced to buy and sell shares or trade forex, and only a minority of us actually do so. But if carbon trading becomes compulsory worldwide, effectively every single one of us will be forced to buy and sell through this scheme. No one will be able to go through their daily lives without being represented directly or indirectly in the carbon markets. Those who control the carbon markets will effectively control the world.

If we are going to cede that kind of control, and money, for a claimed crisis of planetary proportions, shouldn’t we first be absolutely certain that the crisis is real?

The magazine Investigate goes a few steps further in following the money and the potential consequences and realities of such a scenario. In their July 13, 2009 article "Global Governance on Climate Agenda" they discuss the roll of the UN as an emergent world governing body in some rather stark terms:

By now you should be beginning to appreciate how the new world order will work. The UN Security Council will become stacked with members undoubtedly approved by Socialist International, and the USA will lose its power of veto, substantially or even entirely. Because of new funding streams from carbon taxes and a global financial transaction tax, the UN will have its own revenue and be capable of putting its own “peacekeeping” military force into action. Meanwhile, the new Sustainable Development Council will have the same draconian powers to direct how the world economy should develop and how resources should be collected and spent. Countries wishing to dispute would get a hearing in the UN General Assembly, but if they didn’t have the political support they could be ordered to tow the line or face increasingly harsh sanctions from the UN community.

Voting rights on the new Sustainability Council would be based on “three main criteria: a country’s share in world population, GDP and contributions to the UN global goods budget.”

In other words, the more you contribute to the UN, the more say you have in governing the affairs of other countries.

This is where things come back to my previous comments on individualism and social issue voting motivations. Many look to the US for leadership on international issues and many were devastated and bewildered by the America's refusal to sign the Kyoto Accord. Even Barack Obama voted against it when he had the opportunity to do so as a Illinois state Senator. Now the US is facing immense pressure to sign on to these new carbon trading schemes being proposed. If the US signs many others will follow suit. Obama is now POTUS and was elected on numerous social issues and putting an end to the war in Iraq. Now he has the opportunity to accept or decline the protocols being presented and it looks like he will sign. The conference is still a few months away so we will have to wait to see if he does so, but if the US signs then other nations who might be questioning their stance will fall into line knowing that they won't have the US to back them and as such they are too weak to stand alone; unlike the US.

If this comes to pass then the rights of the individual will be more severely trampled than many can imagine. If we look to history for what happens when governments gain more and more power we see an alarming trend. In the 20th century the most obvious examples of overly powerful governments are the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Kampuchea (better known as the Khmer Rouge led Cambodia under Pol Pot in the late 1970s), and the Government Junta of Chile led by Augusto Pinochet to name but a few. The end result of each of these was not pretty and a direct result of the people giving up power to growing minority of people.

So what makes anyone think that placing power over themselves in the hands of foreign peoples or governments is a good idea?

I have no problem with greener energy technologies or conservation but I loathe the idea of people being scared into something as drastic as what is being called for by world leaders.

I can't say definitively that global warming is happening or not; human caused or not.

What I can say is that each of us owes it to ourselves to investigate the issue to the best of our ability. Discuss it with others and not only those with those who agree with us. We should not be afraid to hear a dissenting opinion. Then when we have a handle on the facts and can speak about the issue with some intelligence we can seek action.

Just as people shouldn't have been scared and manipulated into a war in Iraq, we should not be scared and manipulated into potentially stripping ourselves of our rights and freedoms.

Fighting against a conservative New World Order only to walk into a liberal New World Order will only end in the subservience of the individual.

Do the research.

Make up your own mind.

I leave you with a brief tidbit from Ian Wishart: